摘要
Abstract
This paper looks into the comparative figures of In-Kind and Not-In-Kind HFCs substitutes, in terms of their technical maturity, cooling efficiency, environmental and human safety requirement, etc. Conclusion shows, NIK materials have lower per unit cost, while the cooling efficiency of which is relatively low. Meanwhile, they have some safety risks in production. The overall NIK cost could be a little bit high. In-Kind materials have higher per unit cost, while the cooling efficiency is high. The overall cost could be low. While the shortcoming of IK materials is that most of their IP and patents are belonged to other country companies. The paper suggests NIK as HFCs substitute, may not have enough potentials than some study suggested. IK materials is the key area, where in future negotiation, more attention on financial and technological should be paid for.关键词
《蒙特利尔议定书》/基加利修正案/HFCs/非相似替代物质和技术(NIK)Key words
Montreal Protocol and its Kigali Amendment/HFCs/Not-In-Kind HFCs substitutes分类
资源环境
